you double count passing game production, since you give 33% weight to both passing and receiving. In essence, a one yard completion from Denard to Roundtree gets credited as two yards. I realize that the data's all there and I could do it myself, but it seems like a better formula would be Total Returning Offense = 0.5*Rushing Offense + 0.25*Passing Offense + 0.25*Receiving Offense. Does that change the results significantly, or even at all?

x percentage of pass attempts are completed for over 20 yards (out of all pass attempts), so the number of passes completed over 20 yards gives you a number directly proportional to a ratio that takes into account short completions and incompletions as well.

x = PassCompletedFor20 / PassAttempts

If x increases, the assumption is that the coach is being more aggressive.

In other words, I think the OP has taken it all into account correctly, given this assumption.

I don't see why it has to be EITHER he was a freak of nature OR he was a cheater. He won during an era of rampant cheating, so even if he was doping he still beat competitors on an even playing field. Same with Bonds. I have no problem with acknowleding that those two were extraordinary athletes with world-surpassing skills, who were probably cheating as they beat the world's best cheaters.

We tend to think of PED-fueled accomplishments as unearned, when in fact, PEDs allow athletes to work harder and train more rigorously. This means that in a PED-soaked environment, these athletes are still outworking and outtraining their counterparts, as well as benefitting from the best genetic gifts they could possibly receive--and in this sense their achievements are well earned. I could dope all day long and not compete with these athletes, because I am a) not genetically gifted enough to take advantage of the PEDs, and b) too damn lazy to put them to best use. The same goes for 99.99% of atheles, so when Lance and Barry emerge at the top of their respective pyramids, they are still deserving winners. However, in denying PED use repeatedly, they are probably lying liars of the dishonest sort.

My suggestion for bringing scores for the bigs into parity would be to de-emphasize screens substantially, like give them a +0.5 rather than +1. It rewards them but a screen is probably not as important as an accurate assist pass.

Doing a +/- for each player would be enormously useful, albeit a ton of work. It's the one piece of data that would be the most informative IMO.

Again, thanks for putting in the effort -- you're adding a lot of valuable data here.

One small nit-pick: For the sake of consistency, shouldn't what you're calling a 2-1-1-1 actually be a 1-1-1-2? After all, a 2-3 zone is 2 guys up top, 3 down low, and also you name the 1-4 high using this nomenclature.

But overall I love this idea and look forward to seeing how it evolves over time.

Larry Bird wasn't a big man? He averaged 10 rebounds per game over his entire career. The most important distinction is that he played FORWARD, not wing. I agree that he did play for the most part as a small forward. However, in the 1980s, the forward position was much less differentiated than it is now, with both forwards tending to play down low more. Bird probably wouldn't play the 3 as it's defined today. I would certainly consider him to be a big man.

Sounds like OSU is only offering him a preferred walk-on slot. But he's a former basketball player, which suggests good agility and footwork. As a sleeper/project, he sounds great. Plus, he's coached by a former Wolverine!

It's not the size of a guy like Cam Gordon that makes people think he should play closer to the line of scrimmage, but his lack of top-end speed. He has the frame to put on 10-15 more pounds and be good OLB.

Plus, I don't remember Stevie Brown's problem being lack of speed, but lack of coverage instincts.

Threet transferred from GT when the new coach, Paul Johnson, installed an option offense (and became eligible at UM just in time for RichRod's installation of the zone read here--oops!). So it's not so much that he transferred for lack of playing time, but more for being a total misfit for the GT offense.

Unfortunately, it looks like we're still in "Year 1 @ WVU" rebuilding mode with regard to turnovers. BUT, this year, our TOM looks worse because our opponent's number of turnovers is pretty low. Scaling up by 50% gives 16.5 for the entire year--much lower than any UM or WVU opponents during 2001-07.

since neither you nor I are invested in a strong defense or condemnation of the playcalling. However, I wonder what the YPC numbers look like after the first TD drive. After that, PSU seemed to have adjusted well and even in the 1st half our offense looked anemic both on the ground and in the air.

Nitpick: how do you get 4.1 ypc after sack yards are stripped out? In the box score I see 40 rushes for 151 yds gain, 41 yds loss. Sacks are 5 for 26 yds. Taking those out there are 35 carries for 151 - (41-26) = 136 yds. That's 3.9 YPC, not dramatically different than your figure of 4.1, but still worse. If you're excluding Tate as a rusher, you can't do that given the QB role in this offense.

As I understand it, your only beef is with the 3rd quarter, right? Yes, we started that quarter only down 9 pts, but by the end trailed by 22. With the way the offense kept imploding that 22 pts felt pretty daunting. Plus we averaged 2.8 yards per carry for the game. Sorry, but it's hard to see being too critical about the run/pass ratio on this one.